Re: [Freedos-devel] MEM? How about "Central Point's MI"

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:57:05 +0400 (MSD), you wrote: Hi, > Of course, I try to review other memory viewers to find which more >interesting things may be showed. Good. > My MEM shows much more info about extended and XMS memory. :) Yes. Just a suggestion, because the program high and lo

[Freedos-devel] (no subject)

>If someone has access to Lynx and could test with EMM386 and give me the results, >that would be great. A user reported that it worked with past EMM386 versions >and not now,although I'm a bit skeptical that it would work once and later fail >since Lynx would have to be either bug-dependent or mis

Re: [Freedos-devel] MEM? How about "Central Point's MI"

Hi! 30-Мар-2004 20:43 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnson Lam) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: JL> I think both Bart and Arkady have a version of MEM. But the JL> traditional M$ layout seems not good enough, will you consider the JL> alternate layout of PCTools V9's MI (Memory Information)? Of course, I

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

I agree with Alain. DOSFSCK 2.10 with fixed >2G bug will be the easiest and the best solution. Lucho --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technol

[Freedos-devel] Delivery Status Notification

Your message was refused by recipient's server filtering program. Reason given was as follows: Disallowed attach type Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp8.libero.it Received-from-MTA: dns; libero.it (62.10.64.210) Arrival-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:30:42 +0200 Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actio

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Hi, The problem about all this discussion is that it is talking about DOSFSCK as if it has to be rewritten an debugged all over. That is not tha case. It is a _functional_program_ , it's kernel has no more known bugs (for what I remember). So if this missing function is added, very little testi

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086. But it doesn't support FAT32 ;-) --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Le

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Steve Nickolas - Using Windoze schreef: DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086. then it means CHKDSK/SCANDISK are intended for FAT12/FAT16 and DOSFSCK also does FAT32, I guess. unless someone manages to get CHKDSK/SCANDISK supporting FAT32 :) Bernd

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Bernd Blaauw wrote: who knows if MS scandisk runs on <386 ? that's our specification after all. DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086. -uso. --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial p

Re: [Freedos-devel] [OT] Dr-DOS 8.0

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:20:01 +0200, Florian Xaver wrote: You may have seen it: Dr-DOS 8.0 is released. Only one improvement: FAT32 and LBA. Oh! They sell it for $200 (http://www.devicelogics.com/products/drdos80.htm). Does the kernel include the improvements from Udo Kuhnt? If not, who updated

[Freedos-devel] The FreeDOS spec (yes, again :-)

Hi! Some developers told me, why they aren't program for FreeDOS: They think (and yes, i understand it), that FreeDOS should ONLY be a MS-DOS clone. Yes, i think, it should be as compatible as possible to M$-DOS. BUT: It shouldn't anticipate other improvements. Bye, -- Florian Xaver

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Eric Auer schreef: Hi, dosdosfsck-2.8-fat32 does work for FAT32 for me. The problem with then what was the disadvantage of using/providing 2.8? I seem to recall 2.10 was really wanted, so diagnosis of FORMAT could be done in a better way. About SCANDISK: Scandisk should be something with an intera

[Freedos-devel] [OT] Dr-DOS 8.0

Hi all! You may have seen it: Dr-DOS 8.0 is released. Only one improvement: FAT32 and LBA. So...if FreeDOS would have a multitasker...what would be the difference between the 2 os?? Bye, Flox -- Florian Xaver

[Freedos-devel] Re: SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Hi, dosdosfsck-2.8-fat32 does work for FAT32 for me. The problem with DOSFSCK for DOS in version 2.10 is that Imre did port the 2.8 -> 2.10 update but did not complete the disk I/O drivers yet, which is why I think that 2.10 for DOS works worse than 2.8 for DOS but has more potential (because it w

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Luchezar Georgiev schreef: Yes, DOSFSCK 2.10 (27.I.2004) works for small FAT32 volumes only. For example, it works for my 2000 MB FAT32 volume, but for my 25 GB FAT32 volume, it says: Checking whether we can access the last sector of the filesystem Seek to 26551170560:No error But I think this

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:20:49 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote: problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32. Yes, DOSFSCK 2.10 (27.I.2004) works for small FAT32 volumes only. For example, it works for my 2000 MB FAT32 volume, but for my 25 GB FAT32 volume, it says: Checking w

Re: Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:20 +0200, Aitor wrote: If we can live without a true SMARTDRV, we can live without a true SCANDISK too. The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?) that it was mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I don't think there is

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Johnson Lam schreef: On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:20:49 +0200, you wrote: Hi, problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32. CHKDSK also. there does not exist a single CHKDSK/SCANDISK which can run on 16bit processors AND support FAT32. there does not exist a single CHKDS

[Freedos-devel] VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL / VIRUS U VASIM MAILOVIMA (Worm.SomeFool.Gen-1)

| VIRUS ALERT | UPOZORENjE O VIRUSU | Our virus scanner found|Nas virus skener je nasao Worm.SomeFool.Gen-1 virus |virus in e-mail message You

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:20:49 +0200, you wrote: Hi, >problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32. CHKDSK also. >basically this means 3 programs: > >[1]*CHKDSK >[2]*CHKDSK + GUI, call it SCANDISK (or whatever you prefer) >[3]*DOSFSCK > >[1] requires 8086 but is limited

[Freedos-devel] MEM? How about "Central Point's MI"

Hello, I think both Bart and Arkady have a version of MEM. But the traditional M$ layout seems not good enough, will you consider the alternate layout of PCTools V9's MI (Memory Information)? [quote begin] Memory Info V9 a (c)1993 Central Point Software, Inc. Total bytes owned Addr. Lo

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

Johnson Lam schreef: If DOSFSCK can do the job similar or better than SCANDISK, then we don't need to insist on the name. For me, I think using the name DOSFSCK is better because it's NOT a direct replacement of SCANDISK. problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32. It'

Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:20 +0200, you wrote: Sorry for breaking in ... >The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?) that it was >mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I don't think there is any >over "SCANDISK" (I may be wrong). I'll think this

RE: Re: [Freedos-devel] SCANDISK vs DOSFSCK

>Of course! Neither do we call LBACACHE a SMARTDRV, don't we? >If we can live without a true SMARTDRV, we can live without a true >SCANDISK too. The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?) that it was mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I don